About your Search

20121118
20121118
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
, but will the obama administration let it happen or turn an oil boom into a bust? welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot. headed into friday, fiscal cliff talks with congressional leaders, president obama gave us a hit list of his negotiations strategies, repeating his intention to immediately raise tax rates on top earners. >> when it comes to the top 2%, what i'm not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need it which would cost close to a trillion dollars and it's very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars if we're serious about deficit reduction, just by closing loopholes and deductions. the math tends not to work. >> paul: but does the president's math add up? let's ask wall street journal columnist bill mcguerin, and analyst steve moore and washington columnist kim strassel. so, kim, the president won reelection, was this the hand of magnimty reaching out to the republicans? >> it's crazy, it's what the president says all the time. if you listen to the press conference, he seems to say the biggest wish list for his liberal partisans
. the big difference this time, one difference this time is the position of the obama administration, which began in 2009 seeking to distance itself name usually from israel and ending its first term supporting israel which is an interesting evolution on the point of obama and in my view a hopeful one. >> there were a couple other differences. one is hamas has longer range missiles than four years ago and the middle east of 2012 is different than the middle east of 2008. we have the arab spring, egypt is no longer run by a dictator but leaders of the muslim brotherhood. what are the challenges for israel and the u.s. now? >> if you look at the whole foreign policy portfolio that obama is facing, not just the problem in gaza, but we still have the problem with pakistan, iran, egypt and libya is still not a stable situation. i think it only amplifies the problem that this is a really dangerous world, and i think part of obama's struggle in the coming months and year is going to get some hold on exactly what our policies are, what is the degree of toughness that we are going to employ because
it tell us about the whole approach, the light footprint that the obama administration recommended. >> chris: what would that be? i haven't heard that phrase until today. but it is in the papers. >> the idea that once we had gadhafi out in libya, we weren't going to go in with a big new presence and huge new diplomatic installation and we were going to try and do more sort of with less as it were. >> chris: not in libya... >> and that is being applied across the region as well. >> chris: it is interesting, up to this point, secretary of state clinton has kind of avoided much fire of libya. she said that she was taking responsibility for it, but that was in the middle of the night, at an interview down in south america. and she has been absent from the hearings, so far. as they focus, maybe less on the timeline and more on the question of why these diplomats were so undefended, so vulnerable, with all the warnings before hand, could secretary clinton come under fire. >> she'll have to answer questions, but i imagine what she'll say is they didn't realize how vulnerable they were and
of the surveillance in the wake of 9/11. thanks to the petri at act and continued under the obama administration. the government has more access to info about us than at anytime in history. a small example of what this looks like. check out this graph of u.s. government from google. these are requests that don't require warrants and this doesn't include the security related requests not disclosed. for awhile, i thought the combination of these trends, the u bik wiity of technology was pushing us to a future where citizens would be unable to keep their secrets while the government keeps its secrets. i feared it would end up totally exposed to each other and the state. the state and its doing and what it's doing in our name would be a mystery. then miraculously, but also inevitably, they collided with each other in the petraeus affair. the four-star general's communications with broadwell reveal a lot of mundane personal failings. really, it seems not anything scandalous as far as the public's fear goes. the only possible scandal, as far as i can tell, is the conditions which the fbi came to read
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)